Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!rutgers!mtune!westmark!dave
From: dave@westmark.UUCP (Dave Levenson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.misc
Subject: Re: Disc reliability
Message-ID: <147@westmark.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 29-Aug-87 08:56:48 EDT
Article-I.D.: westmark.147
Posted: Sat Aug 29 08:56:48 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 30-Aug-87 08:52:24 EDT
References: <1246@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> <768@custom.UUCP> <202@ttrdd.UUCP> <15376@onfcanim.UUCP>
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA
Lines: 17
Xref: mnetor comp.sys.ibm.pc:7279 comp.misc:1135

In article <15376@onfcanim.UUCP>, dave@onfcanim.UUCP writes:
> ...Are all small hard disks unreliable compared with good large ones?

While some brands of "small disks" seem to have shorter MTBF than
others, I believe that small disks, as a class, are no less reliable
than large disks.  The difference, however, is that small disks tend
to be installed in small machines.  Small machines tend to sit on
desks or workbenches, in dusty or smokey or mechanically-noisey
environments. They tend to be powered up and down a lot.  They tend
to be moved around while powered up.  They tend to be in over-heated
(actually, under-cooled) rooms.  Collectively, all of these factors
reduce the actual TBF of disks and other things that move.
-- 
Dave Levenson
Westmark, Inc.		A node for news.
Warren, NJ USA
{rutgers | clyde | mtune | ihnp4}!westmark!dave